Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1108
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,108 Views
Message 981 of 1,444

Since I didn't remember using the word 'greedy' which RandyJ repeatedly claims I did and which  doesn't sound like me, I searched my comments. This is what I said: 

 

As to who financially gains from fluoridation policy, they are too numerous to list but include fluoridated toothpaste manufacturers and fluoridation marketeers hired to create astroturf materials for social media fluoride-trolls. Then there are the dentists whose big bucks are earned from treating dental fluorosis. I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.

 

Here's a link to a 1988 special report issue of Chemical Engineering that speaks to the inconsistencies between policy & scientific data. It includes some financial data: 

http://www.nofluoride.com/Chemical_&_Engr_News.cfm  

EXCERPTIn a similar vein, the economic benefits of fluoridation appear to have been exaggerated. NIDR states that every dollar spent on fluoridation, which costs only 20 to 50 cents per person per year, reduces dental costs $50. NIDR assumes that fluoridation reduces cavities some fixed percent, such as 40%, and then multiplies the total number of cavities theoretically prevented by the average cost of filling one cavity. But when the actual costs of dental care delivered in similar cities are compared, residents of fluoridated cities seem to reap no economic benefit from fluoridation. In one study, reported in a February 1972 article in the Journal of the American Dental Association, the cost of dental care in five unfluoridated cities in Illinois was compared with costs in five similar cities with naturally fluoridated water. Even though dentists’ fees and the nature of treatments in the two groups of cities did not differ significantly, the cost per patient and the average number of visits to the dentist per year were greater in the fluoridated communities.

Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 10.59.11 AM.png

 

FWIW: A 21st century innovation to get around the inconvenient financial facts regarding fluoriation is to use computer simulations and questionable input data that substitutes Medicaid codes as proxies for cavities. Again, I'm not accusing all dentists of being dishonest, but dental Medicaid fraud has been identified as a multi-million dollar problem in multiple states and has been the topic of several whistleblower cases. 

 

2014 in New York - 40% of claims are fraudulant

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/01/13/government-programs-have-become-one-big-scamm...

2015 in Indiana -  94 dentists defrauded Medicaid of $30.5 million

http://wishtv.com/2015/05/12/indiana-dentists-accused-of-overtreating-patients-overbilling-medicaid/...

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1108
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1102
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,102 Views
Message 982 of 1,444

Richard Sauerheber – Your statement suggesting that I implied, “So now it sounds like it is acceptable for fluoridation opponents to speak out againt it because indeed they truly believe and have evidence for the fact that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective. So that's great.” is a perfect example of how anti-science activists (ASAs) change topics and “adjust” reality and the context of statements to fit their agenda.

 

To be very clear, I never stated or claimed or implied that I believe that it is “acceptable for FOs to speak out against it”, particularly employing the tactics I and others have highlighted, regardless of whether they ”truly believe” or think they have legitimate supporting evidence.

 

I actually stated, “If someone saw a glow in the theater and really believed there was a fire that was endangering them and others they would certainly be within their legal rights to scream Fire!” “Within their legal rights” does not translate to “acceptable”.  If you can find anything in my comments to suggest I believe the conduct of ASAs is acceptable, please feel free to cite it.

 

I am stating that it is irresponsible to yell Fire! if the body of evidence (as interpreted by the majority of relevant experts) supports the conclusion that the fear-causing glow is from a cell phone – or perhaps a flashlight.

 

I actually agree with your statement, “It's not that complicated.  Unproven correlations can do much long lasting damage to the health community.”  That is precisely why many “medical treatments”, like homeopathy, that depend entirely on anecdotal correlations for evidence of effectiveness have the potential for harm.  However, support for CWF is not based on “unproven correlations” except in the over-excited imaginations of fluoridation opponents. 

 

The fact is that the medical community accepts the evaluation of the 70-year body of evidence that the benefits of CWF far outweigh any currently known risks.  If fluoridation opponents have legitimate evidence to support their apparently paranoid fears, it is their responsibility to convince the medical and scientific communities their fears are legitimate instead of continuing to yell Fire! for over 70 years with no legitimate, reproducible supporting evidence.

 

If the findings of legitimate research supported the conclusion that specific diabetic drugs caused more harm than benefits, and the results were published and confirmed by additional research the drugs should have been taken off the market.  If additional risks were discovered, but the benefits in many cases outweighed those risks, the drugs would probably be kept on the market with additional warnings.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1102
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1138
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,138 Views
Message 983 of 1,444

A straw man fallacy is when statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents in order to mount politically biased and invalid rhetorical attacks. Other logical fallacies used by fluoridationists DavidF, RandyJ and members of the fluoridation advocacy group on this thread and elsewhere are  circular reasoning, appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, etc. All the logical fallacies are popular with fluoridationists and social media trolls. 

 

The irony is that the fluoridationists claim the fluoride opponents are using 'gish gallop' with our science based and ethical arguments, when it is they who like creationist Duane Gish, PhD (1921-2013) are trying to manipulate public opinion with lengthy rambles filled with flawed reasoning.  Gish was a wordy creationist and orator who repeatedly 'proved' that evolution theory is false and that the Bible creation story is historical fact. (Randy's comments are frequently 2,000- 2,500 words while DavidF prefers making multiple comments one after the other for his delivery of fallacies.) 

 

In particular, let me point out that it is totally illogical to use the rubber stamp endorsements of the CDC for its own fluoridation policy and the Amercian Dental Association (ADA) which is a trade association with financial ties to the fluoride industry as proof of anything while denying the validity in the reasoned opposition to fluoridation in the 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with over 500 citations by the Internationational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAMOT). The IAOMT is an international group with professional membership in all 50 states. The IAOMT is governed by a science board and was founded in 1984 with a scientific mission that includes funding independent peer-reviewed research regarding non-toxic oral medicine and educating medical professionals and public in dental and oral medicine. 

 

But we digress. As an opponent of fluoridation, I prefer science and ethics. For your clicking convenience, here are the 8 scientific citations which were in fact removed via flagging when posted on another online platform in reply to RandyJ's taunt of lack of science: 

 

“The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems… avoid the fluoridation of drinking water and fluoridation of milk in all regions of the country.” - Romero et al. 2017 

  • The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health. Verena Romero, Frances J. Norris, Juvenal A. Ríos, Isel Cortés, Andrea González, Leonardo Gaete, Andrei N. Tchernitchin. Rev. méd. Chile vol.145 no.2 Santiago Feb. 2017.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453591 

 

“This study provides evidence that chronic oxidative and inflammatory stress may be associated with the fluoride-induced impediment in osteoblast differentiation and bone development.” - Gandhi et al. 2017 

 

“In conclusion, prolonged fluoride intake at chosen concentrations caused imbalance of the cellular oxidative state, affected DNA and disrupted cellular homeostasis. It is recommended that fluoride supplementation requires a fresh consideration in light of the current study.” - Campos-Pereira et al. 2017 

  • F.D. Campos-Pereira, L. Lopes-Aguiar, F.L. Renosto, et al. Genotoxic effect and rat hepatocyte death occurred after oxidative stress induction and antioxidant gene downregulation caused by long term fluoride exposure. Chem Biol Interact. 2017 Feb 25;264:25-33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28089781 

 

“The finding supports the epidemiological results that water fluoridation might be responsible for the increasing rate of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.” - Kakei et al. 2016 

 

“Last is the question of whether in issues of uncertainty it is appropriate to determine broad-based policies intended to mandate public health measures.” - Gesser-Edelsburg & Shir-Raz 2016 

  • Anat Gesser-Edelsburg and Yaffa Shir-Raz. Communicating risk for issues that involve 'uncertainty bias': what can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research · August 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332 

 

“We found that practices located in the West Midlands (a wholly fluoridated area) are nearly twice as likely to report high hypothyroidism prevalence in comparison to Greater Manchester (non-fluoridated area).” - Peckham  et al.  2015

  • S. Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community Health. 24 February 2015. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971 

 

“In summary, this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for SES. The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD.” - Malin & Till 2015

 

“Such contaminant content (in fluoridation chemicals) creates a regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.” - Mullenix 2014

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1138
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1190
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,190 Views
Message 984 of 1,444

So now it sounds like it is acceptable for fluoridation opponents to speak out againt it because indeed they truly believe and have evidence for the fact that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective. So that's great.

As far as describing why some professionals agree with fluoridation, I can't determine that without discussing that with each person. I would guess that indeed most, being uninvolved in fluoridation research themselves, simply accept what dental officials at the CDC state. Why should they disbelieve it since they don't do their own research on it?

All doctors who I know do not intentionally subject patients to fluoridated  water and really could care less whether patients want to drink it or not. Most don't object to it either because it is widely believed to be a Federal policy. But this of course is incorrect for reasons listed previously. When discussing the issue with physicians over the years kmost accept that fluoridation is not useful after evidence is presented to them indicating that. I don't know any  who actually endorse or promote fluoridation in the face of evidence describing its ineffectiveness.


Early in my research career I had no reason to disagree with the use of the commonly prescribed diabetic drugs to treat type II diabetes. But after conducting experiments on the issue it became clear that these drugs should not be prescribed. Most are derivatives of beta cell harming substances that release insulin in an abnormal way and the real issue in type II is not insulin lack anyway, it is overnutrition that is correctable without drugs. So with fluoridation the same events are common, where people generally accept it on faith from word of mouth and only reverse position when discovering definitive data that indicate eating fluoride is ineffective.

It is not hard to understand this, where dentists are taught in dental schools that fluoride is good and ingesting it reduces dental decay. This was a stance that was agreed upoin by dental school deans in the 60's and the country is now paying the price for that.

It's not that complicated.  Unproven correlations can do much long lasting damage to the health community.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1190
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1211
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,211 Views
Message 985 of 1,444

Richard Sauerheber – If someone saw a glow in the theater and really believed there was a fire that was endangering them and others they would certainly be within their legal rights to scream Fire! – even though it was a false positive.  One of humanities most important survival skills is to pay very close attention to and avoid perceived risks – real, imagined or fabricated.

  

If someone actually believed they and others were in danger, how can you conclude that "screaming fire in a crowded room when there is no fire, imagined or otherwise, is illegal"? 

 

I am just stating the fact that fluoridation, like noticing cell phones glowing in dark public areas, is recognized by most individuals who understand modern science as safe – that is the definition of a consensus.  There are some, however, who believe there are dangers and yell Fire!

 

Fluoridation opponents are within their legal rights, protected by free speech, to promote their opinions - for example those by CarryAnne:

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt and vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions and Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” 

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM)the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM)I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.

 

And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."
"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."
"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims against the organizations they referenced and also, as I have asked them, against all members of the 100+ respected (except by anti-science activists) organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?

 

If you answer yes, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are mindless lemmings who are willfully or ignorantly blind when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation, how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1211
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1182
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,182 Views
Message 986 of 1,444

But screaming fire in a crowded room when there is no fire, imagined or otherwise, is illegal. It is not protected by free speech rights.Those opposed to mandatory fluoridation of people against their will are not screaming any such thing and in fact are trying to protect the rights people are supposed to have to access fresh drinking water without added agents designed to treat human tissue (that do not work in the first place).

Claiming that opposing fluoridation is like screaming fire when there is no fire is an assertion that such opposing speech is illegal. it is not.  Whistleblowing is protected by first amendment free speech rights. This is the United States of America and in this country we are protected by the U.S. Constitution and have full rights of free speech on the issue of fluoridation of people against their free will.

Intimidation and threats of such protesters being illegal are unAmerican.

Protecting the rights of people to have access to clean fresh drinking water is also a right that is guaranteed by the United Nations. Forced fluoridation of populations en masse in cities is a violation of such rights and a violation of the prescription process since fluoride tablets cannot be prescribed in cities where water fluoride levels exceed 0.6 ppm and cannot be prescribed to children under three.  Fluoridated water promoters do not believe fluoride is a medicine and that these statements are irrelevant but that is false. The FDA ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. Is the FDA screamilng fire and mongering fear by making this ruling? Of course not. if you want to change the policy of the FDA land the pescription process and regulations for pescribing fluoride for ingestion go ahead and talk to them. 

But until then I preach what the FDA rules.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1182
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1211
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,211 Views
Message 987 of 1,444

Richard Sauerheber – My observation has nothing to do with being “illegal and a violation of free speech rights” If the person yelling FIRE! had a severe paranoia and actually believed themselves and everyone else in the theater to be in immediate danger – perhaps the person saw a frightening glow from several locations.  If they had no knowledge of what cell phones looked like in the dark they could easily jump to conclusions, employ the precautionary principle and try to warn everyone.  Everyone else in the theater would accept the consensus that cell phones did not represent a significant danger and ignore the glow. Although the more paranoid might demand that cell phones and other battery-powered devices be banned from public places because of the known risk of batteries catching fire.

 

The bottom line is that, despite all of the alleged “evidence” you and other fluoridation opponents present in support of your allegations that CWF is harmful and ineffective, the consensus of relevant science and health experts that fluoridation is safe and effective continues.  Explain that fact.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1211
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1226
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,226 Views
Message 988 of 1,444

Wrong again. First, there are many doctors and other health professionals who do no research themsleves on fluoridation or fluoride toxicology and who accept the false tenets promoted by fluoridatinoists, while at the same time those same professionals understand other health issues very well. In fact it is the rule rather than the exception that doctors understand many issues better than others while some issues are not understood well.  Doctors are humans.

 

Second, the NRC concluded that the current EPA MCL's for fluoride in water are not fully protective of human health.and should be lowered.  The committee also admitted that much more research is needed because many questions remain unanswered. in othe words, fluoridationists put the cart before the horse and went ahead long ago and began fluoridating people without full knowledge of whether it would be safe or not. We now know it is not harmless to all consumers and the program should be halted and never should have begun in the first place. it is not FDA approved. And only the FDA (not the CDC, EPA, or ADA) has Congressional authority to regulate minerals claimed to have health benefit when ingested..   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1226
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1198
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,198 Views
Message 989 of 1,444

Now I've heard everything. Telling the truth, that eating and drinking fluoride ion does not and cannot reduce dental caries, is regarded as "yelling fire in a crowded room"?  The latter is illegal and a violation of free speech rights. The former is simply being a patriotic whistleblower. 

 

Eating/drinkng fluoride from water infused with fluosilicic acid, caustic soda, and the other contaminants of fluoridation does not reduce dental decay and never has. The oringal observation with natural calcium fluoride that appeared to be associated with reduced caries was a false correlation that Ziegelbercker disproved by examining all the data, not just selected data that appeared to show the correlation. There is no effect on caries of drinking F water at levels all the way to 6 ppm, but of course the incidence of dental fluorosis increases progressively as a function of water fluoride concentration. Fluorosis increases in incidence in every artificially fluoridated city and there are no exceptions. Even fluoridationist Pollick has published this fact.

 

Read the textbooks by dentist statistician Phillip Sutton. Read the text by John Yiamouyiannis. Read the detailed published 30-year studies by Teotia and Teotia. 

 

This is not yelling fire in a crowd that incites death and injury. This is just the opposite. It is correctring a long-standing myth from a false correlation dating back to the 1930's. The ADA reversed its original stance from the 1950's against fluoridation, and now promotes it. Were they crying fire in a crowded room when they opposed it? Are the correct now and wrong then? or are they wrong now and correct then?  We now know they were correct then and are wrong now, and the truth needs to be told (without alarming people to cause dangerous runs for cover).

 

There is nothing dangerous about avoiding consumption of artificially fluoridated water. In fact, most people I know in fluoridated cities do not drink city water. They buy gallon jugs of water for drinking. They haven't killed themselves or others by avoiding fluoridated water. In fact, they are protecting the health of their bony skeleton.

 

Bones carry out funcitons far more importrant than simply helping you stand straight up to walk down the road. Bone is a live tissue that is the repository for calcium ion in the bloodstream when dietary calcium is insufficient. Blood calcium is necessary to support the beating heart. Heart muscle has no SR to store its own calcium like skeletal muscle has. It is dependent on extracellular blood calcium to mediate muscle contraction subsequent to electrical excitation of the cell. Bones are crucial to support the functioning beating heart. Every time the heart contracts, it is because extracellulaur calcium diffuses into the heart cell, and when it relaxes it is because calcium ion is pumped back out of the cell. Lub-dub sounds occur after calcium going in then calcium coming back out. If the blood calcium level drops below physiologic range about 2 mM, then the beating heart stops. This is precisely what happend to the U.S. Coastguardsman in Hooper Bay, Alaska from fluoride overdose. There is no need for alarm! Just don't drink water that is overfluoridated.

 

There is cause for concern and action though, to protect bones and to allow bone to be fully responsive to blood calcium ion needs. Don't drink fluoridated water your whole life, because doing so converts normal bone into non-resorbable bone -- the more fluoride accumulates, the more abnormal bone one has. 

 

Again, one doesn't need to run for the hills to avoid a fire. You need to drink clean water long-term that is not fluoridated. If one is in the desert and no other water is available, of course one drinks the fluoridated water to avoid dehydration. But one doesn't go looking for fluoridated water when clean water is available. F water does not reduce dental caries but it does cause F to accumulate in bone.  Plain and simple, except for some people fluoridated water is the only water available and avoiding it becomes more difficuilt. RO units in sinks are costly but necessary if bottled water or distilled water or hauled clean water are not available. Bone char (used to clean raw sugar to make white sugar) can filter water to remove fluoride, but bone char is now scarce.    .

The best thing for a city to do is simly to halt adding fluoridation chemicals into water supplies. Don't halt adding chlorine becuse this serves a health purpose of sterilizing the water to kill  pathogens. Fluoride though provides no physioogic functional purpose whatsoever and in fact water fluoridation needs to be properly named for what it causes, it is a bone fluoridation program that was hoped to be an oral ingestible caries-fighting decay preventive chemical, but it isn't. . 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration correctly labels fluoride additions into water as an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. Fluoride ingestion is not and never has been FDA approved. The FDA is not "crying fire in a crowded room", but most certainly properly determines the safety and effectiveness of drugs, minerals, and supplements. Listen to them.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1198
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1199
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,199 Views
Message 990 of 1,444

Dr. Osmunson – Regarding your (08-27-2018 01:40 AM) comment:

 

Yes, the title (and my claim) is the “Scientific Consensus Continues to Support Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)”.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to ask you several questions about your comments.

 

Q1) If you choose to arbitrarily fabricate a different name than Scientific Consensus, then please explain how the “Endorsement Consensus” of a dozen or so alternate health, environmental, spiritual, consumer and cultural organizations you listed by you (07-09-2018 09:40 PM) and CarryAnne (06-28-2018 07:32 AM) is more credible than the “Endorsement Consensus” of the 100+ nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation? 
~> http://ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-f...   
~> http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/  

 

It does not matter whether the CWF Consensus is called a “Scientific Consensus” or an “Endorsement Consensus”.  It appears to be a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the fact that only a small minority of health care professionals in the world are represented by the organizations you listed as objecting to CWF.  Exactly how many health professionals are represented by the AAEM, ICIM IABDM, IAOMT, HAD and ICA?

 

Q2)  What group of experts do you and other fluoridation opponents (FOs) accept as a reliable majority of scientists and health professionals who (as a group) are educated and experienced enough to accurately evaluate the 70-year body of evidence and form a legitimate educated consensus about the benefits and risks of CWF?  Obviously (according to FOs), it is none of the mainstream science and health organizations or their members who have not joined the anti-F crusade despite what you believe to be conclusive and obvious evidence of harm.  According to you, these professionals are, “like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.”  Do you accept CarryAnne’s depiction of ADA and EPA and ATA members as "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths", and do you extend it  to the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF who have not publically denounced CWF?

 

Q3) If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation who have not publically denounced CWF have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice and blindly followed each other, how can you possibly trust any of them to be competent in any other areas of their practices?

These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American  Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on… 
Obviously the same question applies to all of the representatives of the scientific organizations that publically recognize the benefits of CWF and have not denounced the practice.

 

I agree with your statement, “Consensus is not scientific evidence”, however you seem to be missing the fact that the Scientific Consensus is based on an evaluation of the Scientific Evidence.
Q4) Do you accept the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Consensus as “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.”?
Q4A) If NO – Explain what you would call an agreement of conclusions based on an evaluation of the relevant body of evidence by relevant experts. Then explain whether you would accept that term as applying to the four conclusions outlined below and CWF.
Q4B)
If YES – Explain how you can claim that the anti-F position is in any way, “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study” when only about six health organizations and their practitioners endorse it?
-- Do you accept what I consider a fact that the majority of relevant science or health organizations and practitioners accept the three scientific /health related conclusions below?
-- Do you accept the term Scientific Consensus as applicable to the three scientific/ health related conclusions below that are accepted by the majority of relevant science or health organizations and practitioners? 
(a) The benefits of brushing with fluoridated toothpaste (reducing the risk of tooth decay and improving dental health) outweigh any known risks;
(b) The benefits of adding disinfectants to treat drinking water outweigh risks of ingesting residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts even though, according to anti-F “logic”, there is no “dose control” (07-27-2018 12:55 PM) and “there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) for ingesting sodium hypochlorite, chloroform and other disinfection byproducts, and, as far as I am aware, “There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for [the safety of]  dilute short contact topical or ‘ingested’ [chloroform and DBPs]” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM).  If you accept the consensus of disinfection, it is difficult to understand how you can dismiss the consensus on CWF;
(c) The benefits of vaccination for members of a community far outweigh the known risks.  Consequences of discontinuing vaccination would be serious – probably catastrophic –  if a majority of individuals chose to skip vaccination for flu, polio, MMR, DTP, chicken pox, shingles (for elders), etc.

 

The IAOMT constitutes only one of the six alternative health organizations and 6-7 environmental, spiritual and cultural groups  you and CarryAnne listed as supporting the anti-F opinions.

Q5) Have all of the other anti-F groups published “position papers on fluoridation” – if not, are they and their representatives all “like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to [disprove the benefits and effectiveness of] fluoridation”?

 

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

 

Your requests (08-27-2018 01:40 AM), “Please provide the names and internet links to the top three organizations' position papers on fluoridation.  … Randy, relying on these organizations for endorsements is quite different than relying on them for quality position papers referenced with primary research” remind me of the ‘wizard’ behind the curtain frantically trying to divert attention from reality.

 

First, take a look at the IAOMT  “Position Paper against Fluoride Use…”.  It is simply a blanket condemnation of exposure to fluoride ions from any source at any exposure level and included newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, etc. provided as “references”.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it does not appear that the IAOMT conducted any of the primary research.  They simply collected and listed all of the studies which had concluded (or could be adjusted to appear as though they concluded) exposure to fluoride ions was harmful and ineffective.  The “Position Paper” was not even a review that compared and evaluated studies with different designs, qualities, conclusions, etc. to present a considered, scientific evaluation.   As David pointed out (08-27-2018 02:14 PM), “So, when I look at that "Position Statement, and see quotes about Bone Fractures and Weakened Bones which may occur under certain conditions, which have nothing to do with water fluoridation, I think a normal person [particularly trained and experienced ‘normal’ health care professionals] would conclude that this statement was cherry-picked and taken out of context.  If you would like to explain what those certain conditions are, and provide primary evidence from the 2006 NRC Report explaining the statement, so that we can all see it in its full context, that would be fine.  But to provide a link to a deceptive opinion piece is hardly ‘primary evidence’ of anything.

 

The IAOMT “Position Paper” could be copied/pasted by any of the other anti-F groups, and they too would, according to your beliefs, have published a “Position Paper”. 

 

Your insistence on an arbitrary fabrication of "Endorsement Consensus” to replace “Scientific Consensus” in the specialized area of CWF, your definition of the majority of health practitioners as “a bunch of lemmings” who ignorantly or willingly ignore what you consider “facts”, and your belief that a comprehensive list of anti-F references in a “Position Paper” somehow constitutes all the relevant “facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions” needed to understand all the complexities of CWF are simply diversionary tactics.  You have created a curtain and loudspeaker with towering flames and general chaos designed to hide the fact that fluoridation opponents are a vocal minority of activists who have not been able to provide legitimate evidence sufficient to change the Scientific Consensus (or even the "Endorsement Consensus") that CWF is a safe and beneficial public health initiative. 

 

It is difficult to imagine you actually believe that because position papers with several thousand references to fluoridation-supporting research is not readily available to the public (most of whom will never read or understand them anyway) means that those thousands of professionals responsible for their patient’s care and wellbeing have not examined reviews and studies like those below and accepted their conclusions as more legitimate than the “Position Papers” of anti-F activists?

 

References to peer reviewed reviews and studies which support the benefits &/or lack of harmful effects of CWF (with citations of primary research) that you apparently missed.  Unfortunately, comment length limitations prevent the posting of most review conclusions:

The 2018 Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England:

~> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for-england-2...  

 

The 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report:

~> https://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/tds_fluoride_30042018.html 

~>  www.fsai.ie/publications/fluoride_study_2014-2016  

 

The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:

~> http://who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf 

 

The 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water:

~> https://www.ifau.se/globalassets/pdf/se/2017/wp2017-20-the-effects-of-fluoride-in-the-drinking-water...  

 

The 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report:
~> https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/eh43-0 

 

The 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation:  A review of the scientific evidence:

~> https://royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug-2014-corrected...

 

 The 2011 European SCHER review, Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water

Genotoxicity –Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic

to animals, while lower doses were generally negative for genotoxicity
Carcinogenicity –On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies,

there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice

Carcinogenicity, Epidemiological studies –  “SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic.”

Neurotoxicity –  “SCHER concludes that fluoride at concentrations in drinking water permitted in the EU does not influence the reproductive capacity.”
Mechanism of fluoride action in caries prevention –The predominant beneficial cariostatic effects of fluoride in erupted teeth occur locally at the tooth surface. This could be achieved by fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride- containing water, fluoridated salt, etc. maintaining elevated intraoral fluoride levels of the teeth, dental biofilm and saliva throughout the day.”

~> https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf

 

According to the 2006 NRC review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water”, the “committee was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects”  The review did not conclude there was ANY REASON (no adverse health effects) to lower the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of fluoride ions in drinking water of 2.0 ppm (nearly three times the optimal level). 

 

Not a review, but important recent evidence from a study promoted by fluoridation opponents.

The 2018 National Toxicity Program study, An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats:

~> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12640-018-9870-x

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1199
Views